INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular diseases (CVD) remain the biggest cause of disability and premature death throughout the world. AIM: The aim of this study was to describe and determine the prevalence of major cardiovascular risk factors emerged at the first medical examination carried out by a group of an oil and gas contractor company workers in the observation period 2000-2010. METHODS: An observational cross-sectional study was conducted on 1073 workers (mean age 41 years, SD = 9.5) presenting overweight BMI (body mass index) values, hypertension and cholesterol problems. RESULTS: In particular, we found that workers > 45 years had significant higher risk to have obesity (OR = 3.8, CI 95% = 2.5-5.7), hypertension (OR = 2.7, CI 95% = 2.1-3.6), high blood fasting glucose (OR = 2.6, CI 95% = 1.2-5.5), high cholesterol (OR = 2.7, CI 95% = 2.0-3.6), high triglycerides (OR = 1.8, CI 95% = 1.4-2.4) compared to younger (< 45 years).

OBJECTIVES. The aim of this study was to quantify the level of health related quality of life and burnout in a call centers sample of precarious workers. METHODS. An observational study was carried out in Italy. A self-reported anonymous questionnaire was administered to temporary workers in order to estimate burn-out and quality of life levels. RESULTS. 227 questionnaires were collected. 78% of the sample was female and the mean age was 35.48 years (SD = 9.91). Among the participants, 40% were smokers, 42% regularly drinkers, 65% changed the body weight (more than 5 kg, in 1 year). The mental component score (MCS) was significantly better in subject that have a regularly life style, for example in those no change their body weight (p = 0.001), sleep more than 7 hours (p = 0.018) and followed a diet (p = 0.035). The DP (depersonalization) is significant higher in former smokers (p = 0.031), in underweight subjects (p = 0.025) and in the group that have a precarious employment of over 2 years (p = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS. This investigation shows that in this particular category of atypical workers depressive symptoms and quality of life were lower than the general population. It is important to underline that the interpretation of the results is limited partly by the observational character of the study.

AIMS: The aims of the study were to describe the epidemiology of home injuries (HI) among Italian students' mothers and to identify the possible predictors of having HI. METHODS: An anonymous questionnaire was used in several Italian schools. In order to identify predictors of having HI, a multivariate analysis was performed. RESULTS: In our sample (3,610 women), the prevalence of HI was 18%; 6.2% of the interviewed had a severe HI. The multivariate analyses showed that increasing age, to spend more than 13 hours a day at home and to be housewife are risk factors for having HI. CONCLUSIONS: This study reports a high prevalence of HI, highlighting an urgent need for undertaking interventions to develop an adequate culture of safety and prevention.

BACKGROUND: A cross-sectional survey on knowledge and perception of occupational biological risk among workers in several occupations was carried out in the industrial area of Rome. METHODS: The study was carried out in the period of March-April 2010 using a questionnaire with 33 items on the following areas: a) socio-demographic data; b) perception of the biological risks in ordinary occupational activity; c) knowledge about biological risks; d) biological risks in the working environment. The questionnaire was submitted to a convenience sample of workers of an industrial area in Southern Rome. RESULTS: 729 participants entered the study from the following work activities: food, catering, service, farming and breeding, healthcare, school and research (males 57.2%; mean age 37.4 years, SD = 10.9). Significant associations were found between different activity areas with respect to the relevance of the biological risk (p = 0.044) and the perception of the biological risk (p < 0.001). With respect to vehicles of infectious agents, the highest percentages of the most common biological risk exposures were: air and physical contact for the catering and food group, 66.7% and 61.90% respectively; air and blood for the health and research group, with 73.50% and 57.00% respectively; and physical contact and blood for the service group, 63.10 % and 48.30%. Significant difference of proportions were found about the prevalent effect caused by the biological agents was the occurrence of infectious diseases (59.90% food group, 91.60% health and research and 79.30% service group) (p < 0.001). The perception of knowledge resulted in a good rank (sufficient, many or complete) in the food and catering group, 78.3% with significant difference compared to other professions (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: All participants show good knowledge the effects induced by biological agents and it is significant that almost half of the respondents are aware of the risks concerning allergies. Nevertheless, it is surprising that this risk is known mainly by workers of service, farming and breeding, to a greater extent than it is known by health workers.

INTRODUZIONE: È stato condotto uno studio trasversale nell'area industriale di Roma relativo alle conoscenze e alla percezione del rischio biologico occupazionale fra lavoratori di diverse tipologie. METODI: Lo studio è stato condotto nel periodo marzo-aprile 2010 utilizzando un questionario che indagava sulle seguenti aree di interesse: a) dati socio-demografici; b) percezione del rischio biologico nelle attività lavorative ordinarie; c) conoscenza dei rischi biologici; d) rischi biologici nell'ambiente lavorativo. RISULTATI: Hanno preso parte allo studio 729 partecipanti delle seguenti categorie: alimentazione, catering, servizi, agricoltura e allevamento, sanità, scuola e ricerca (maschi 57,2%; età media 37,4 anni, SD = 10,9). Sono state riscontrate associazioni significative fra le differenti tipologie lavorative e la rilevanza (p = 0,044) e la percezione (p < 0,001) del rischio biologico. In relazione al tipo di veicolo di infezione, le percentuali più elevate di rischio biologico riportate dai rispondenti riguardano: l'aria (66,7%) e il contatto fisico (61,9%) per il gruppo dei lavoratori del settore alimentare e catering; l'aria (73,5%) e il sangue (57,0%) per il gruppo dei professionisti sanitari e dei ricercatori; contatto fisico (63,1%) e sangue (48,3%) per il gruppo dei lavoratori dei servizi. Sono state riscontrate differenze significative nelle proporzioni relative all'effetto prevalente causato da agenti biologici (59,9% nel gruppo dei lavoratori degli alimenti, 91,6% nel gruppo dei professionisti sanitari e dei ricercatori e 79,3% nel gruppo dei servizi) (p < 0,001). CONCLUSIONI: Tutti i partecipanti mostrano una buona conoscenza degli effetti indotti dagli agenti biologici ed è significativo che circa la metà di essi sia consapevole dei rischi relative alle allergie. È tuttavia sorprendente che questo rischio sia conosciuto meno dai professionisti sanitari rispetto alle altre categorie lavorative considerate.

Introduction: Research provides the important evidence base for public health practice. We sought to compare the current support for public health research within European countries. Methods: Within a collaborative study SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe), we developed an e-mail questionnaire and sent it to 93 representatives of national member associations of the European Public Health Association. We compared the answers with reference to tree macro-areas: Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe. Results: We gained responses for 22 of 39 European countries (56% country response rate). Current priorities at national level were: health service and patient safety for Northern Europe; infectious disease, health service and cardiovascular disease for Southern Europe; and food safety and nutrition, environmental and occupational health for Eastern Europe. Respondents gave fewer priorities for international research. In the North Europe the priorities empathized were health promotion, prevention and education (26.3%) together the injuries and alcohol habits (26.3%). Conclusion: Support for public-health research differs across Europe, and barriers to undertaking better research include structures and sufficient personnel. National public health associations and public authorities should cooperate in order to find effective answers to common problems.

Introducción: La investigación aporta la salud pública la importante base de la evidencia científica. Nuestro objetivo fue comparar el actual apoyo de investigación en salud pública en los países europeos. Métodos: En el marco del estudio colaborativo SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe) se desarrolló un cuestionario vía correo electrónico que fue enviado a 93 representantes de las asociaciones nacionales miembros de la Asociación Europea de Salud Pública. Se compararon las respuestas en tres macroáreas: norte, sur y este de Europa. Resultados: Se obtuvo respuesta de 23 de los 39 países europeos (tasa de respuesta por países: 56%). Las prioridades nacionales actuales fueron: servicios de salud y seguridad del paciente en el norte de Europa; enfermedades infecciosas, servicios de salud y enfermedad cardiovascular en el sur de Europa; y seguridad alimentaria y nutrición, salud medioambiental y ocupacional en los países del este de Europa. Los encuestados dieron menos prioridad a la investigación internacional. En el norte, las prioridades enfatizadas fueron la promoción de la salud, la prevención y la educación (26,3%), junto con los accidentes y los hábitos alcohólicos (26,3%). Conclusión: El apoyo para la investigación en salud pública difiere en los países europeos, y el no disponer de unas buenas infraestructuras y de personal suficiente fueron barreras para llevar a cabo mejor investigación. Las asociaciones de salud pública nacionales y las autoridades sanitarias deberían cooperar para encontrar respuestas efectivas a problemas comunes.

Introduction: Research provides the important evidence base for public health practice. We sought to compare the current support for public health research within European countries. Methods: Within a collaborative study SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe), we developed an e-mail questionnaire and sent it to 93 representatives of national member associations of the European Public Health Association. We compared the answers with reference to tree macro-areas: Northern, Southern and Eastern Europe. Results: We gained responses for 22 of 39 European countries (56% country response rate). Current priorities at national level were: health service and patient safety for Northern Europe; infectious disease, health service and cardiovascular disease for Southern Europe; and food safety and nutrition, environmental and occupational health for Eastern Europe. Respondents gave fewer priorities for international research. In the North Europe the priorities empathized were health promotion, prevention and education (26.3%) together the injuries and alcohol habits (26.3%). Conclusion: Support for public-health research differs across Europe, and barriers to undertaking better research include structures and sufficient personnel. National public health associations and public authorities should cooperate in order to find effective answers to common problems.

Introducción: La investigación aporta la salud pública la importante base de la evidencia científica. Nuestro objetivo fue comparar el actual apoyo de investigación en salud pública en los países europeos. Métodos: En el marco del estudio colaborativo SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe) se desarrolló un cuestionario vía correo electrónico que fue enviado a 93 representantes de las asociaciones nacionales miembros de la Asociación Europea de Salud Pública. Se compararon las respuestas en tres macroáreas: norte, sur y este de Europa. Resultados: Se obtuvo respuesta de 23 de los 39 países europeos (tasa de respuesta por países: 56%). Las prioridades nacionales actuales fueron: servicios de salud y seguridad del paciente en el norte de Europa; enfermedades infecciosas, servicios de salud y enfermedad cardiovascular en el sur de Europa; y seguridad alimentaria y nutrición, salud medioambiental y ocupacional en los países del este de Europa. Los encuestados dieron menos prioridad a la investigación internacional. En el norte, las prioridades enfatizadas fueron la promoción de la salud, la prevención y la educación (26,3%), junto con los accidentes y los hábitos alcohólicos (26,3%). Conclusión: El apoyo para la investigación en salud pública difiere en los países europeos, y el no disponer de unas buenas infraestructuras y de personal suficiente fueron barreras para llevar a cabo mejor investigación. Las asociaciones de salud pública nacionales y las autoridades sanitarias deberían cooperar para encontrar respuestas efectivas a problemas comunes.